We have to pass so we can know what's in it. This is to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi. Now, Urkel is doing his redistribution shuffle again from the faith based organizations to insurance companies that will most likely drop such coverage to save costs anyway. To call this man a moron is to truly insult the moronic.

What's next on the polical pandering list of "free stuff" to force insurance companies to provide? Gasoline and car maintenance are expensive. Why shouldn't auto insurance cover the costs of filling your tank, changing your oil, replacing your tires and other maintenance expenses? After all, if a person can't afford to repair their car, they may be driving an unsafe vehicle which is dangerous to children and other creatures. Insurance companies are big, rich, evil corporations so why shouldn't they pay for these things? It's for the children!

It takes a special kind of failure of imagination to think that women are denied access to contraception unless they are forced to pay for it through a prepayment plan that is part of their employment compensation.

Out of curiosity, I wonder why the smartest President we have ever had did not figure this out at the beginning? The Bishops will now have to decide if there is anything really new about this approach vis a vis their relationship with their insurance companies. Money being fungible I am not sure this is any different from what was there before, political optics aside.

"... It takes a special kind of failure of imagination to think that women are denied access to contraception unless they are forced to pay for it through a prepayment plan that is part of their employment compensation..."

I know I was glad when my college girlfriend got on the pill so I didn't have to wear the Mr. Happy Raincoat anymore. They were always too tight and hard to apply. But that was before Trojan came out with the Magnum.

So Hitler announced that he won't be invading Poland after all. He will be building aircraft and submarines for the time being. He will just wait for a better moment when everything else is in place. Now it's not like he said that he won't ever invade Poland. He never said that he now believes that invading Poland is wrong and unconscionable. So the world goes on as if nothing ever was said, right? Right?

It's a false compromise - a fig leaf. Just like the executive order that Stupak bought into. It's no real change in policy and it will not prevent the lawsuits. A law prof at Notre Dame has already dismissed it as inadequate.

By the way, I guess women can't "afford" the birth control pill but somehow can magically afford the employee contribution of the insurance premium that is going to increase because of this "free" stuff.

Seriously, you have no understanding of the real world. Stop commenting, you're a joke.

Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?

Just for the sake of comity I'll treat this as if it were any kind of actual social problem. Given that huge counterfactual, do you not understand why an insurance mandate is an idiotic way to address the problem?

Instead of forcing the 99% of women who can afford it buy it though a third-party payer--thereby adding nothing but an extra layer of administrative costs to a simple transaction--you could just give the 1% the money to buy the stuff themselves.

And anybody who's getting insurance through her employer is clearly able to afford the pill. Cuz, y'know, she's got a job.

How many of the women who could not afford to do this are EMPLOYED by religious institutions?

An aside...in this entire discussion I have not seen anybody mention the monthly cost of BC. A quick google search indicates Walmart has BC for $9 a month. So this whole kerfuffle was about $9 a month???????

"... Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?.."

Well actually, no, I don't because even in our Dickensian society, birth control just isn't that expensive, Andy. If they have a job, with insurance, I'm certain they can scrape up a few bucks to enjoy the ecstasy of recreational sex.

...An aside...in this entire discussion I have not seen anybody mention the monthly cost of BC. A quick google search indicates Walmart has BC for $9 a month. So this whole kerfuffle was about $9 a month???????...

No it about bringing the Catholic hospitals to their knees by requiring them to perform abortions.

Katherine Sebilius was just on Fox. She is full of doubletalk. She says free contraception is actually cheaper than not providing free contraception and so insurance companies will be happy to provide pills for free. Then she says millions of women currently don't have free birth control coverage. Why would that be? Because insurance companies and employers have, to this point, been happy to lose money?

Purplepenguin: No, but can the government compel Muslims and Jews to eat pork because it is healthy and the dietary laws are outdated? Because Jews and Muslims alike often eat pork even though it is forbidden. And many, if not most, like the taste. So why shouldn't Muslim and Jewish kids be fed pork at lunch. The USDA thinks pork very very healthy.

"Since for me this issue is about women having access to contraception."

Women actually DO have access to contraception, Andy. Their Catholic employer's insurance plan is only one way. Planned Parenthood offers it gratis. So that heavily outweighs the serious power grab against religious institutions Obama wants (to excite his base).

Reposting my recent post in the 400+ Catholic much ado about nothing thread:

Twice as nice! :)

"it will be forgotten in a couple of months."

Probably a couple weeks, so I admit, ;) I was probably wrong.

btw, the president just gave a cool, calm and collected press conference in which he characterized his conservative opposition re: this issue, in so many words, as raving lunatics.

The president also pointed out, correctly, to a national audience that 98% of Catholic women go against the tenet of the church re: contraception/birth control. Shocking! So much for religious moral authority.

So now, conservative Bishops, who weren't gonna vote for Obama anyways, will have to invent a new wedge issue on which to rail against Obama.

One interesting detail about this -- if you believe the Obama admin, an insurance company covering contraceptives always SAVES the insurance company money. That is, if the insurance company is for-profit, it would always want the insured to have "free" contraceptives. Is this really the case?

No it about bringing the Catholic hospitals to their knees by requiring them to perform abortions.

It's about that, but it's about telling women that this administration cares.The whole "women's health" as a special interest issue full of give-aways geared toward women and not men is a big fundraiser for Democrats.

It may prove to be a great victory, but...it's his opening gambit; I doubt it's that great an offer.

1) No one should be compelled to fund what s/he deems immoral via paying for health insurance or participating in a health-insurance pool.

We're not talking about a compelling case: there is no reasonable argument for anyone needing contraception as a life-or-death matter. If it is truly a life or death matter, then there's no controversy; the Church has no objection to using hormone treatments for other medical purposes.

So the Church should not walk away, leaving others to be coerced; the Church should keep fighting so everyone wins, not just the Church.

2) Don't accept the President's gracious word. We want it written into law.

3) We see now what mischief the President can make--and will, if he can get away with it. The legislation we want will take that away.

I don't know what the bishops are going to do, but that's my advice. Fight on!

So far, every single provision of Obamacare that has gone into effect has either caused widespread outrage/panic, been found insolvent and canceled (CLASS Act), seen enrollment numbers at only a small fraction of projections despite still having cost overruns (high risk pools), or required vouchers and exemptions for business and unions because the rules were too costly, convoluted, idiotic, or contradictory to possibly comply with.

“This is a false ‘compromise’ designed to protect the President’s re-election chances, not to protect the right of conscience,” says Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel for The Becket Fund. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of religious institutions are still left out in the cold and will be forced to violate their religious convictions.”

President Obama’s proposed adjustments to the new Health & Human Services rule requiring Catholic institutions, including the University of Notre Dame, to provide health care plans covering contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs continue to violate religious liberty, according to O. Carter Snead, professor of law at the University of Notre Dame.

It' a lie. Everything that liar says is a lie. And it's a trap, as garbage uncharacteristically demonstrates in the clear. Bhoener took similar bait. So will the bishops, because they have no grounds to stand on: they voted for the liar and approved his nationalization of the medical profession and insurance business. They believed the lies up front. They can't not believe just one now without demolishing their stochastic structure. They will eat the pill and call it breakfast.

"...An aside...in this entire discussion I have not seen anybody mention the monthly cost of BC. A quick google search indicates Walmart has BC for $9 a month. So this whole kerfuffle was about $9 a month???????...

No it about bringing the Catholic hospitals to their knees by requiring them to perform abortions."

I know that...but that point isn't held up by the hatman's of the world as the reason.

What scares me about this is how the debate has been limited to the question of whether or not 1st Amendment rights have been violated. That is, it is framed as a question of religious liberty. I still can't accept the idea that the Federal Government can and should require a private employer to provide any particular compensation to an employee. We are a nation of sheep.

It has to do with why, apparently, it is vital that birth control and breast pumps now be covered fully by insurance. Because some women don't have that coverage, this administration made the noble mistake.

Now, why that's more vital than the little kid who needs a free asthma inhaler, I do not know.

Shiloh/AndyR: You think this is a political issue when it is not. As a reformed liberal I can tell you that your attitudes toward the government usurping freedom are what we used to imagine conservatives having. You have very reactionary attitudes toward this matter because you don't care about organized religion and believe the state will restrict its interference to churches. Rest assured that government, whether led by Republicans or Democrats, will use its power in ways that you will not like. You think this matter is trivial but you are wrong.

Where is all the taxpayer money going on the Federal, State, and local level already earmarked for free condoms? Maybe the third graders can bring home a few from the barrel by the exit. Name brands, though. Not those generic ones that have no street value.

As has been pointed out, birth control for the vast vast majority is easily affordable so the fact President Shortpants is still pushing this as if its the social issue of the century certainly is proof there is more to it than just making sure women can free birth control.

Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.

Churches remain exempt from the birth-control coverage requirement. And their workers will not have the option of obtaining separate contraceptive coverage under the new arrangement.

So, the actual parish church that only hires Catholics and only preaches to Catholics is still exempt, as before. The Catholic organizations - schools, hospitals, etc - are not. They can purchase insurance that does not explicitly state they cover contraception and abortion pills, but their employees can choose coverage that does cover those at no cost to the employee. Silly Catholics. The insurance company is still going to charge you the premium amount to cover those "free" contraceptive policies. It is the same as before. Will the bishops really fall for this? Probably.

So let me get this straight, the compromise requires health insurers of religious organizations to provide contraceptive services free of charge. I'm no constitutional scholar like the President, but I am pretty sure any government mandate that a company provide a product without the ability to recover its costs (and perhaps a reasonable rate of return) amounts to a regulatory taking that violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Women still will be guaranteed coverage for contraceptive services without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds.

I don't see the compromise.

All this says is that you will buy insurance that doesn't include a line about contraceptives, but wink-wink, you get them anyway.

Regardless of the politics of contraceptives, this is just plain deceitful.

Out of curiosity, I wonder why the smartest President we have ever had did not figure this out at the beginning?

He more than likely knew the bishops would raise a stink. Now they are out of the equation, what's left? I think it's a rare case where Obama made the perfect play. He steps in and looks all compromising and sensitive to religion, and still gets 100% of what he wanted.

The president also pointed out, correctly, to a national audience that 98% of Catholic women go against the tenet of the church re: contraception/birth control. Shocking! So much for religious moral authority.

One interesting detail about this -- if you believe the Obama admin, an insurance company covering contraceptives always SAVES the insurance company money. That is, if the insurance company is for-profit, it would always want the insured to have "free" contraceptives. Is this really the case?

Yeah, that's my question too. And if it does, why would any good business not be already providing free birth control pills/devices?

"Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees."

If this were the Clinton White House, I would stick with my original take that this was a pre-planned, calculated move to give the POTUS compromise chops prior to the election. Going back over the years of this team, though, I'm leaning more toward, "they didn't think this through".

President Obama’s proposed adjustments to the new Health & Human Services rule requiring Catholic institutions, including the University of Notre Dame, to provide health care plans covering contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs continue to violate religious liberty, according to O. Carter Snead, professor of law at the University of Notre Dame.

"However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge."

I must be stupid. I don't see how this is any kind of a compromise. Its like when I had a retail job. We said it will cost you $25 for delivery. They demanded free delivery, so I said "fine, but then I need to add $25 to the cost of the product". That is what is happening here. The insurance companies will just ad this to what the religious organzations pay for insurance.

"We see now what mischief the President can make--and will, if he can get away with it. The legislation we want will take that away."

A nation elects and allows herself to be coerced into electing a mischief maker, someone whom wants to hurt her, tie her in knots, deprive her of rest, and says so/does so openly and happily.

Like the nation for whom they too bear responsibility, the bishops lack moral courage sufficient to protect the nation or the church. They will swallow the pill of lies and declare it medicament. Church and nation support the anti-humanist cause.

Machine, regarding your claim that 28 states already have that requirement, you may want to check with Chris Matthews. As he pointed out last night, that is a false, administration talking point. There are ways around all of the State mandates that are not available here. For example, the state mandates do not apply to medical plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

I don't say it often, but I think Garage is right; this was a clever play by Obama; although it may not work, it likely will help.

It's what I've predicting: he would step in with a concession in hopes of dividing the opposition.

Unfortunately, the bishops--if they prepared for it--weren't able to keep Sister Keehan from selling them out...again. She'd much rather do what President Obama says is right; not what the successors to the Apostles say.

But I haven't seen a response from any of the bishops. Again, I wonder if they saw it coming. I was hoping to warn my own bishop about this soon, but I haven't talked to him yet.

Obama will manage to split the Church on this issue if the bishops are foolish enough to fall into his trap. They have finally found their collective voice and led on this issue. I pray that they are not deluded by Obama's deliberate obfuscation on the issue of mandated contraception and abortion. This "accommodation" is nothing less than the camel's nose under the tent. Furthermore, we who occupy the pews, have no protection from having our consciences violated. Please do not sell us out.

"Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge."

"The president also pointed out, correctly, to a national audience that 98% of Catholic women go against the tenet of the church re: contraception/birth control. Shocking! So much for religious moral authority."

40% of all African-American babies die through abortion. 60% of them do in NYC. So I think we should have a special fund just to abort Black babies. Does that logic work for you? Mayor Bloomberg can administer it.

Any inhaler containing a CFC propellant (the vast majority, because people with brains know that the total quantity involved is 1/1000000 a spit in the ocean) was banned as to manufacture and sale. Not possession or use, though. Keep your lies straight.

What SBVOR said. But I would stress that Obama may mean well here. If you assume, as SBVOR suggests and I suspect, that Obama really doesn't understand economics at all, in the slightest, to the tiniest degree, then you can conclude that he actually thinks this new policy is morally, ethically, and economically sound, and everyone should smile on it.

On the other hand, if you think Obama isn't quite that dumb, then you'd have to conclude that he thinks the electorate is.

A psychologist would be good to analyze this. If Obama really thinks this will work, then he must think the religous organizations really don't care about their beliefs, but only the appearence. Does Obama think that most people only care about appearences, and not reality?

As best as I can tell sexual intercourse provides 2 opportunities, 1)reproduction. 2) pleasure. The 2 are not mutually exclusive, but if both are involved then birth control is not needed. If you need birth control then by definition you are having sexual intercourse for only 1 reason- pleasure. So the government is now in the position making insurance companies insure the pleasure of it's subscribers? Suppose the woman is unable to attract a willing partner? clearly she's being denied a pleasure guaranteed by the constitution. What benefit do we need to require the insurance company give her to insure her pleasure then? I could make a much stronger argument that a heath insurance provider provide toothpaste and toothbrush. If I'm forced to go without sex for a month I've suffered no lasting harm, but if I go without brushing my teeth for a month.... Insurance was never intended to meet our daily needs, it was intended to cover unexpected needs. And there is no such thing as "free" although after 3+ years of creating 1.3 billion dollars out of thin air, it can be supposed that Obama doesn't grasp this concept.

Not if the bishops tell him to fuck off. And even I don't think Dolan is as big a fool as to believe Little Black Jesus now after having been sandbagged.

"Bet if altar boys could get pregnant. . ."

Machine, you're slipping. It used to take much less than an hour for you bigots to haul out the old "sex abuse" taunt. Why don't you go check the percentage of sex abuse by priests opposed to government school teachers? I'll be waiting breathlessly for your screams of outrage.

And Hat, Sister Carol is about as "Catholic" as you are. She's a lefty, a liar and a dupe, one of the post-Vatican II 'social justice' clowns.

I just don't get it. For employers who insure their employees, what's changed? If they want to provide health insurance to their employees, they have no other choice but to buy a plan with contraception coverage. I don't see any difference in this new wording -- none whatsoever.

(The exception is for self-insured plans and the "Face Sheet" is mute on those -- does the ASO provider have to provide contraception coverage and, in theory, not pass those costs on to the employer?)

"Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge."

Sorry Garage. The smell lingers even after the latest FOS lies have risen like clouds of incense boldly proclaiming that The Mandated Health Insurance policy will now state in bold type that in exchange for the premiums paid by Catholics, this insurance policy will give totally free abortificant Rx and totally free birth control Rx and totally free doctors that prescribe them.

See, now no one pays for the Free Rx and Free Doctors. So shut up and go back to your Red Chinese new world order, or else.

I've thought about my previous post, and decided it needs an addition. if an insurance company providers contraception as a benefit not all subscribers will take advantage of it, and thats where they will make their profit. Those subscribers who don't have sex will be subsidizing those who do.How fair is that?

Unlike Clinton, Obama really is a true believer in his leftest ideology. Clinton would have truley caved and came out a hero.

Think about it. Clinton, the last 2-term Democratic President and the only one since Truman, accomplished:

-Ending Welfare as we know it-Cut capital gains taxes-Signed DOMA-Publicly stated Iraq had WMD's and bombed Iraq for having them.-Called for and signed a balanced budget by cutting medicare costs-Publicly stated abortions should be safe, legal, and rare-Abadoned plans for a national health care bill.

I'm currently watching the a yale video lecture series "The American Revolution" and it's stunning to see the parallels between the way the England tried to manage it's colonies, and the mistakes they made, and the way the Obama administration tries to manage the 1/2 of the US population that hates his guts. The patronizing, and contempt one holds for the 50% is remarkable

Also, that 98% number has to false. 98% of Catholic women are not even having sex. To get antywhere close to 98%, you would have to use an exceedingly broad definition of "contraceptive," and must be based on something like "have you ever had sex without the intent of getting pregnant?"

Clinton went hard left in his 1st 2 years, and got his ass kicked. So he moved to the center and was very popular for the rest of his term. If Algore wasn't such a dofus, we probably would have had 8 more years of Democrat presidents.

Obama isn't a shrewd politician and he really is a hardcore Bill Ayres style leftist. He may not be slick, but he will continue to push his agenda even if said agenda isn't popular.

Andy R., assuming he is serious, is everything I hate about the left. We think something is good so either 1. The Government should provide it; or 2. The Government should mandate YOU to provide it. In addition, if something is not good for you the Government should ban it.

A consensus is not necessary, and cost is irrelevant. There is no limit to government power, so long as it serves the greater good as that good exists in the mind of the leftist. Andy R. thinks more contraception is good. Therefore, ANYTHING the government does to make contraception more readily available is good. Isn't it a simple world?

Comrade Urkel's "Compromise" is totally bogus. Insurance companies will survey the demographics of the workforce, estimate how much the company will pay for "free" contraceptives, and then add that to the premium cost of the employer. How about the individual buying their own damn birth control pills and rubbers?

"Unlike Clinton, Obama really is a true believer in his leftest ideology. Clinton would have truley caved and came out a hero. Obama has plans for this country so will not cave."

Yes, a true anti-humanist, the one straight fiber of his being. And able to hide behind race. An invaluable operator, and knows it, says it.

The church failed to dissolve the humanist cause (educate everyone and have world peace) despite its evident impossibility and nonsense. When the anti-humanist reaction to humanism set in in force following WWII (since the students won't take the education, eliminate/cauterize the students and as many others as possible, excepting ourselves, and have world peace), the church did not see it and got flummoxed by her own internal anti-humanist operators (at Vatcan II and at WCC and NCC for Protestants and Greeks).

Wait, are people arguing that the government shouldn't take actions to help provide birth control because although it is part of health care/health insurance, the government shouldn't be doing anything to provide health care to people?

Because-"the federal government shouldn't take steps to help provide people with healthcare"AND-"the federal government should take steps to help provide people with healthcare but exclude birth control" are two entirely separate arguments and I thought we were talking about the second one but maybe some of you are arguing for the first one.

The left and right will agree that Obama has a huge God complexe. Quite the ego. "We are the ones we've been waiting for".

I think he has zero respect for his opponents in this issue. I think he really believes that if he can give them a way to save face, they will cave. This "compromise" is no compromise, but he thinks the religous leaders are dumbasses who will fall for this and give up.

More than 50 agencies have a hand in federal regulatory policy, ranging from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Together, these agencies enforce more than 150,000 pages of rules, with purposes and impacts as varied as the agencies themselves.

Really, do we need 150,000 pages of regulations to run this society? Somehow I get through every single day without enforcing a single local, stage or federal regulation and I survive. About the only law I follow is the speed limit.

When the Catholic Bishops reject this, Obama will counter come back with a new fake compromise: OK, then those companies insuring the Catholic Hospitals etc. give a refund equal to the cost of those contraceptives and abortion pills provided. Now The Church isn't paying see. But of course anyone with any intelligence will see they still would be paying.

Ann? you can see it now can't you? The insurance company has to make a profit in order to stay in existence. All the money comes from the insured. Its basic economics.

Lakelevel....many of us believe that the goal is to force out private insurance companies for a state run program.

Fr Fox...I hope the church leaders see through this. Not just the the money is flowing through a middle man (with the institutions still paying), but this is just the beginning. These efforts will come back again and again and again.

This is why we opposed Obamacare in the first place (one of the reasons).....now the gov't controls our health care and the problem will never end.

For what it is worth, I think I came pretty close (or got to) a personal attack on Andy R. I think there is far too much of that. I think Andy R.'s position is wrong. I hate the left's ideas. However, I don't see what is gained by calling my opponents names or questioning their intelligence. I hate that from the left and right alike. Calling your opponent stupid is just a way to massage your own ego, that is, you are complimenting yourself for greater intelligence. The smartest person can be wrong and the dumbest can be right. Why not focus on ideas?

One interesting detail about this -- if you believe the Obama admin, an insurance company covering contraceptives always SAVES the insurance company money. That is, if the insurance company is for-profit, it would always want the insured to have "free" contraceptives. Is this really the case?

Yeah, that's my question too. And if it does, why would any good business not be already providing free birth control pills/devices? 2/10/12 12:10 PM

The logic is that it's cheaper because it prevents pregnancy in the first place. So there's no need to spend the money on an abortion or G*d forbid, an actual pregnancy: pre-natal visits, ultrasounds, amniocentises, delivery and hospitalization (more for a Cesarian section) and add in 26 years of "pre-paid" health care costs for the resulting child.

I hope more people can now see--in the plain language that they use-- that the miracle of conception is a disease, and baby in the womb is a growing cancer that must be surgically removed before it contaminates the utopian world they are try to engineer.

New opportunity to dialogue with executive branchToo soon to tell whether and how much improvement on core concernsCommitment to religious liberty for all means legislation still necessary

WASHINGTON— The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.

“The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.

“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”

LakeLevel, I think you almost have it. As I understand the SCOAMF's "compromise," - insurance companies will be required to provide abortifacients for free, so the Church isn't paying for it - he's forcing the Church to lie.

The insurance company jacks up their baseline coverage and says, "hey, the pill is free," but all they've done is ADD the price of the pill INTO the baseline, thus allowing the Church to say she isn't paying for birth control.

But of course, she is. But the insurer and the Church are supposed to accept the situation with a wink and a nod.

It astonishes and infuriates me to consider just how stupid Obama thinks we are. I hope the bishops slam his lying ass over this.

Rob, one reason this is a good blog is that we have both left, right, and misc view points. So yes, I agree with you. Lefties should be welcome here to express their views.

I doubt AA wants a conservative echo chamber (when she herself seems bit liberal) and I don't want a bunch of like minded people just telling us how right we all are. You don't get good debate skills doing that.